Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39808358›Full record

ArticleJournal of ophthalmic inflammation and infection2025

Analysis of macular retinal thickness in polyarteritis nodosa using spectral domain optical coherence tomography.

Che-Ning Yang, Chia-Ping Chen, Yi-Ting Hsieh

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of ophthalmic inflammation and infection, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Che-Ning YangSchool of Medicine, National Taiwan University, Taipei, Taiwan.
Chia-Ping ChenDepartment of Medical Education, National Taiwan University Hospital, Taipei, Taiwan.
Yi-Ting HsiehSchool of Medicine, National Taiwan University, Taipei, Taiwan. ythyth@gmail.com.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeTo identify the macular retinal layer thickness changes in polyarteritis nodosa (PAN) patients without pathological findings appearing in color fundus photography (CFP), and to investigate the correlations with disease durations.

methodsA total of 24 PAN patients who had been for 3 years or more and underwent SD-OCT were recruited from the UK Biobank, with exclusions for diabetes, eye disease, or abnormal CFP findings. Only the right eyes were included, with each PAN patient paired one-to-one with a control matched for age, sex, and ethnicity. Paired t-tests or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank tests were used to assess the differences in thickness of different retinal layers between groups, followed by linear regression analysis to evaluate the correlations with disease durations.

resultsPAN patients had significantly thinner retinal nerve fiber layer (RNFL) by 12.27% (mean ± standard deviation = 27.39 ± 8.94 μm for PAN patients and 31.22 ± 5.57 μm for controls, p = 0.048) and thinner outer plexiform and outer nuclear layers (OPL-ONL complex) by 10.67% (44.93 ± 6.59 μm for PAN patients and 50.31 ± 7.60 μm for controls, p = 0.032). Visual acuity and the whole macular thickness showed no statistical difference. The RNFL was thinned by 1.22 μm per year of disease progression (95% confidence interval: 0.12, 2.32, p = 0.042).

conclusionsPAN patients without visual impairments or abnormal CFP findings may exhibit significant thinning in RNFL and OPL-ONL complex. SD-OCT may serve as a useful tool for early screening of ophthalmic changes in PAN.

Indexed as

Optical coherence tomographyPolyarteritis nodosaRetinal layer thicknessRetinal nerve fiber layer

Identifiers

PMID39808358
PMCPMC11732801

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.